The Media and Public Affairs. It’s impossible to deny the two are linked. For example: an event isn’t considered news, if the media doesn’t report on it. Think about the news you receive on a daily basis. Have you ever thought about the way the media portrays the information you receive? Is the media accountable for the information they give? Are Americans properly informed of policy issues impacting the world they live in? Is the information useful? Is the media biased? At what cost is the information presented? These are questions that Arizona State University Class PAF 494: Media and Public Affairs, attempts to answer.
Today’s modern world represents a time that information is available, almost immediately, to most everyone. Technology has made it possible for Americans to be as informed or ill-informed, as they wish. Social Media is a new phenomenon linking people together in a non-traditional way. During the last century, people now have a direct communication link to our representatives, governors, and even the White House. Social Media organizes people from afar and unites them in a way that gives them power and one united voice capable of impacting issues. Egypt and the Occupy Wall Street Movement are great examples of how social media impacts the world we live in.
Since, our world is changing and media is available from multiple sources, almost instantaneously, it means voters must rethink the way they perceive information delivered to them and the amount of influence the media has on public affairs. All news mediums partake in the dissemination of information and try to influence the way people think. Take a look at the Funny or Die Video below…
This internet video pokes fun at politics and at the same time sheds light on many issues. The demographic this video attempts to reach is young-internet-savvy adults. Although the video is comedic, it provides ideas about regulations and the outcomes of government interventions.
Another example of a medium that presents news is political blogs on the internet. Political blogs are available for every dot on the political spectrum. A person merely needs to find one that represents their views or that they find entertaining, add the internet address to their favorites, and start reading. One of the dangers of political blogs is that if a person picks a blog that does not include a range of views, they risk being one-sided in their arguments and not truly understanding the view of the other side. Three popular political blogs are analyzed below to show the different information available and their impact on public affairs.
The Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
The Huffington Post is a liberal political blog, but also includes blogs and information about various other items, including: entertainment, business, and style. It is the modern day answer to a liberal newspaper.
Some of the great things in this political blog are that a plethora of information on various subjects is available. The site is user-friendly, easy to navigate, and is visually appealing. Like I mentioned before, it is a modern newspaper and acts as an environmentally safe alternative to printing mass communications.
Items requiring improvement on this political blog is the biasness of the contributors. This site does not provide a well-rounded approach to politics, so if this is what you are after, I would skip this site, as it clearly favors the left. Examples are seen at first sight on the home page of the sight. “Democracy threatened as Republicans Resort to Dirty Tricks” and “Scott Walker Recall Campaign Gets Ugly as Allegations Fly” are headlines that represent this political blogs liberal favoritism.
The contributors skew the facts of their stories to fit their agenda. If a story is in opposition of the right, it is highlighted to their opening page and they have multiple stories about the same issue. On the other hand, if a story disfavors the left, the authors justify the actions and policies of the lefts actions.
An example proving the Huffington Post is biased and not a reliable source of information is titled, “An Affair to Remember” and is found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspending-presidential-campaign_n_1126331.html.
This article relates to the role the media plays in the political process. The title of the article, “An Affair to Remember” shows the bias associated with Huffington Post as it focuses on Herman Cain’s drop-out of the 2012 presidential election. The article title focuses on the allegations of his affairs and sexual harassment and portrays Mr. Cain as guilty of these items. Whether or not the allegations are true or false is still unclear, but the media (in this case the Huffington Post) already portrays him as guilty. The media grabbed a hold of this story and continued to drag-up additional information until he had no choice, but to drop out. The Huffington Post and other liberal outlets who continued to tell this story influenced politics because they eliminated an opposition candidate, thus increasing their own chances to win.
Politico:
Politico is a political website offering coverage on many issues and the stances of politicians at the state level. If you are very interested in politics this is the site for you. My favorite part of the site is that if you enjoy reading a particular contributor, they provide internet links to the author’s favorite blogs. I enjoy this because it is easy to obtain additional information to help make an informed decision. The site is highly interactive and easy to search for archives and research current events for papers. The site provides different views on many issues and it challenges me to think about things in a different way, than I did in the past. Politico is user-friendly and easy to find the information you are looking for. This site can influence politics because it provides an analysis of issues, politics, and others opinions, which readers can process and use to take their own stand on issues and to make informed decisions.
The only item requiring attention on this blog is the over crowdedness of the stories. Although there is an abundance of information, it is somewhat disorganized and you have to scroll through pages of stories of headline news. All of the headlines have the same size font and are written in the same color, so it is somewhat difficult to discern breaking news stories or important stories versus less important stories. All-in-all this is a great place to get your news, both for the political junkie, as well as the novice.
Politico proves to be a partial and reliable source of information. I pay attention to both conservative as well as liberal points of view and both parties utilize Politico’s stories as evidence to make their point. If you only want to choose one news source for your political information, I would choose Politico, because it does a good job of providing a balance to all sides of the political spectrum.
The article, “Why Occupiers Vow to Fight like an Egyptian” and found at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66157.html relates to many discussions that occurred in PAF 394. The social media movement was discussed at length and this article presents the ideas representing the movement. The article notes the demands and wishes of the protestors and states that their organizing techniques were imported from Egypt via Skype. They watched people take down a dictator which motivated them to try to change policies at home, in America. The happening in Egypt changed the world we live in today. Protestors organized themselves via social media and prompted a change in the structure of their government. This powerful movement had profound implications that are just being realized. The news media reports on these movements and also aids the movement by providing the public with links and information to join in the movement.
The third and final blog analyzed is the Daily Kos. The Daily Kos is a very strong liberal minded political blog that slams the right. I enjoy reading this political blog because they are so strong in their liberal views, and the opinions so clear-cut that there is little room for debate. I enjoy getting my information from this blog because it helps define the left end of the political spectrum. The site itself is not too fancy and is easy to use. There isn’t an overabundance of information making navigation easy. The items requiring improvement are the length and amount of information given in the story. Many stories are merely a person’s opinion and not backed by facts. This blog is not a reliable source of information and is extremely biased. If you use this as your main source of information, please remember that the reporters are very biased and believe, very strongly, in the liberal ideology.
An article entitled, “Maine Gov. Paul LePage: Democrats Efforts on Unemployment are Bullshit” is found at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/05/1042475/-Maine-Gov-Paul-LePage:-Democrats-efforts-on-unemployment-are-bullsh*t?via=blog_1. This article relates to class discussions through the propaganda surrounding elections. The article uses strong words and presents the Republican governor as the devil, childish, and buffoonish. This political blog is clearly using liberal ideology against the Republicans to attempt to sway public opinion and impact public affairs.
The access and linkage to an assortment of people (including politicians and news organizations) that Social Media provides is changing the landscape of media and the way messages are delivered. One of these changes is that information is exchanged in real time, meaning issues do not have time to be filtered through professionals to frame the issue the way they see fit. Information is communicated at the exact moment it is happening, meaning facts cannot be skewed. Raw footage showing the exact event is available by anyone owning a cell phone. A great example of Social Media providing information in real time is Twitter. A “tweet” is a statement in 140 characters or less, and is sent to your followers. These “tweets” are meant to be sound bites on issues and news that helps to shape public opinion. Below are six tweets by politicians or news organizations attempting to use twitter to influence politics and public opinion.
BarackObama:
Tonight, Senate Republicans voted to raise taxes on millions of working Americans: http://OFA.BO/uchdTU.
This tweet attempts to sway public opinion to all of President Obama’s followers by stating that Republicans (and not liberals) are responsible for raising taxes on Americans. This statement tries to influence politics by providing evidence that Republicans are not helping the economy and are doing the very thing they accuse liberals of doing.
SarahPalin:
USA
This is outrageous. Wake up, America... http://is.gd/Uyrmb3.
This tweet is trying to influence politics by providing evidence the Obama administration approved a $529 million federal loan guarantee to Finland to build electric cars as part of the stimulus package that was supposed to help put Americans to work. It’s no secret Ms. Palin does not approve of the Obama administration and is attempting to sway public opinion to oust him from the White House.
MittRomney:
The right answer for America is to stop the growth of government & start the growth of the private sector. VIDEO: http://mi.tt/tQmwch.
This tweet is attempting to sway public opinion and help secure his bid as the republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election. Obviously, private sector job growth appeals to many Republicans as an ideology of their party.
Fox News:
BreakingFoxNews
Newt Gingrich mocks Fox News http://sns.mx/J9fFy8.
Fox News is attempting to sway public opinion about Republican candidate Newt Gingrich. Fox paid Gingrich as a correspondent and did not approve of his choice words to mock them. Fox News is providing information to millions of viewers that Gingrich mocked them and many Fox supporters will not be happy to hear this information.
NPR News:
5 Things You May Not Know About Ron Paul http://n.pr/tabL9F.
This tweet provides information about an unknown candidate. This tweet gives Ron Paul a platform to reach a higher number of people than on his own. The tweet links to an article attempting to humanize Ron Paul and even provides support that he was misinterpreted in the past. Tweets like these are important because they provide little known candidates with an expanded population base to attempt to reach and sway public opinion.
NY Times:
Democrats Look to Debate on Payroll Tax for Upper Hand http://nyti.ms/sucyG1.
This tweet provides evidence that Democrats have the upper hand over republicans. It attempts to sway public opinion into believing that democrats will win the re-election campaign. The NY Times is a liberal newspaper and generally portray a pro-democrat stance on issues. The publication is so large and so renowned that they have the ability to sway public opinion of independents or those on the fence of who to vote for.
Social Media, including Twitter, means the media is no longer delivered from only professionals. Utilizing social media, anyone can attempt to sway the public’s opinions. A final change social media will make on swaying public opinion is accountability. Since information is delivered immediately, there is no editing. If someone makes a comment, the comment must be on-point and not offend anyone…once it is delivered to the internet, it is almost impossible to remove it.
Although, the impact of social media and the internet is huge, cable television reaches the highest number of viewers. The coverage of the news stories, on television, matters because most persons obtain their information from this source. Whether the source is MSNBC, Fox News, or some other network, if the stories are not presented in a fair and balanced manner and the authors show bias, the persons watching the shows will be influenced to follow whatever ideology the media presents. Information, not based in fact, can have detrimental effects on the political processes of America.
Competition among cable news outlets is harmful to journalism, because it means network producers have control over the content of the news instead of the reporters. This is bad because most networks are not neutral and are generally aligned with one political party over the other. The polarized nature of politics means a network sides with one political ideology over the other results in an increased amount of positive versus negative stories for the particular ideology they support.
The coverage of the different opinions on different networks also matters because of the network rating wars. The more viewers a network has, the more money they make in advertising. The different networks are constantly in battle to bring the most interesting stories forward and will sometimes do so at any cost, because interesting news results in a higher number of viewers and more advertising dollars. This is a dangerous because many Americans obtain their information and form their opinions based on one network. If untruthful information is presented, Americans form their opinions on this misinformation, which can result in the election of unethical or sub-par politicians, which affects national policies and has ramifications that reach globally. Television ads are the best way to reach passive voters. Passive voters do not want to research the issues themselves. It is difficult for cable television networks to provide fair and unbiased reporting because of the advertising money tied to the programs. Many leading advertising companies have billions of dollars vested in lobbyists and policy issues and this means they can influence cable television networks. For instance, if I am a billion dollar company and pay for space during a certain show, if I don’t agree with the opinion of the reporter, I’ll pull my money and pay for space during a program that I do agree with. This means reporters have to tread a fine line and not offend anyone.
In today’s world, with the number of news sources on TV, you have many options to obtain your source of news. We (as viewers) may feel inundated with information and media overload, but the truth is you can never have too much information. The more information you have, the more of an informed decision you can make about ideas pertaining to public affairs.
As the 2012 election rolls in, viewers will feel overwhelmed by the amount of political information presented to them. The media will play both negative and positive ads about the politicians and attempt to influence the outcome of the next general election. No matter what your news source of information, the media will present political ads, favorable to their ideology, as the answer to all of your problems while the opposing side will be shown as the source of all of your problems. The media attempts to sway your opinion and it will be important for viewers to take responsibility and research some of the information presented to them. In this day and age, since most agree the media plays a significant role in public affairs, it is time for voters to hold themselves accountable and arm themselves with facts and unbiased opinions.
PAF 394 provided an entire module to discussing political ads and their intended purpose and outcome on the election. For more information, please read my blog dated, November 6.
PAF 494 provided great insight into the role of the media and the role they play in current public affairs. Remember the goal of the media is no longer just providing information…they are a separate business entity and must keep/obtain new viewers and advertisers to sustain as a business. PAF 494, as offered by Arizona State University, allowed me to think critically about the relationship between the media and its influence with the public opinion and policy. This class allowed me to analyze important attributes of the media, as well as explore different mediums of information. The class offered a pragmatic approach to utilizing technological tools related to the media industry. I started a Twitter account, my own blog, and learned about the importance of social media (other than using it to keep in touch with family and friends) and its role in the world of public affairs. I learned how to effectively use these tools and analyze what works and what doesn’t work. The skills learned in this class will help me in the future, when I need to utilize these tools in the workplace.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
10 Election Things You Need To Know Today
Unemployment. This will play a big role in the upcoming election between President Obama and the GOP nominee and their attempts to decrease the number.
The National Deficit. As the number climbs, the candidates will need to develop creative ways to combat the problem.
Entitlement Programs. As the deficit climbs, and entitlement programs grow, worries about new money to refresh the program will move to the forefront of the agenda.
The Economy. Small businesses and attempt to rejuvenate the economy will be a huge factor in the outcome of the election.
Reputation. Past decisions and voting records will come into the limelight as people decide who is telling the truth and who isn’t. It could turn into negative politics.
The GOP Candidate. The chosen one will stop being attacked by the Republican Party and a more united front will begin to show.
Money. A huge factor in the outcome of the upcoming election will be the money contributed to the candidates. Obama has already raised more than $86 million; more than all of the GOP candidates combined.
Europe. All eyes will be on Europe and how it digs itself out of its financial woes. It matters because many people are comparing California and New York to Europe and say that they will fail just as Europe has if we don’t fix the spending there.
The Stock Market. As a nation invested in Capitalism, the results of the market will impact daily decisions.
The Media. The media has the power to provide information and ensure fair information is disseminated; they have the power to do good or to do bad with this power.
The National Deficit. As the number climbs, the candidates will need to develop creative ways to combat the problem.
Entitlement Programs. As the deficit climbs, and entitlement programs grow, worries about new money to refresh the program will move to the forefront of the agenda.
The Economy. Small businesses and attempt to rejuvenate the economy will be a huge factor in the outcome of the election.
Reputation. Past decisions and voting records will come into the limelight as people decide who is telling the truth and who isn’t. It could turn into negative politics.
The GOP Candidate. The chosen one will stop being attacked by the Republican Party and a more united front will begin to show.
Money. A huge factor in the outcome of the upcoming election will be the money contributed to the candidates. Obama has already raised more than $86 million; more than all of the GOP candidates combined.
Europe. All eyes will be on Europe and how it digs itself out of its financial woes. It matters because many people are comparing California and New York to Europe and say that they will fail just as Europe has if we don’t fix the spending there.
The Stock Market. As a nation invested in Capitalism, the results of the market will impact daily decisions.
The Media. The media has the power to provide information and ensure fair information is disseminated; they have the power to do good or to do bad with this power.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Election Coverage
Herman Cain’s ad found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM is crazy. I understand the point he is trying to make in that he appeals to the common man and that he is here to save the “rights” of Americans (even those who want to smoke). He attempts to appear like he is going to fight government regulations and bureaucracy by limiting government involvement in the personal lives and choices of American citizens. The problem with this ad is that he makes a dangerous point. He is blowing smoke in the face of traditional government (no pun intended), but one person does not have the power to implement these types of changes in government. The American government is set up as a series of checks and balances to ensure one person does not have all of the power. Herman Cain’s ad is trying to prove that he can change how the system works. Not only, is Mr. Cain’s ad deceiving in what he will be able to accomplish in Washington, but the smoking in the ad undermines public health. Many people fought the battle of the elimination of smoking in public places because smoking poses many health risks. Second hand smoke kills and by making it okay for people to smoke he is infringing on the rights of those people who don’t want to breathe second hand smoke. His ad is saying that smokers have a right to smoke, because it is their choice, but what about people living with smokers, who choose not to smoke, but are still subjected to the consequences? I find the ad hypocritical in that he fights for one “choice,” simply because government has banned it, but not the other. I agree with Todd Essig of Forbes magazine. Mr. Essig is quoted as saying:
“Stated most bluntly, posting this ad reflects an irresponsible disregard for the health of the people Cain aims to represent. Whether his campaign knew better and disregarded that knowledge or remained willfully ignorant of the public health consequences of the power they already wield, this ad should help disqualify him for the office he seeks. Because even if you agree that we need to dismantle a "nanny-state," replacing it with a "neglect/abuse-state" would be even worse.”
After the emergence of Super PACs that followed recent court cases, political donors are nearly free to give as they choose, with their decision guided mainly by how they want to direct their money.
How it’s done:
• A Super PAC can accept unlimited donations to spend on ads for or against specific candidates. For example, a billionaire could give $10 million to the House Majority PAC, a Super PAC organized to elect Congressional Democrats and run by a former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Official. The billionaires name would remain undisclosed.
• The PAC is not required to disclose the amount if it is under $200.
• Candidates can give $2,500 per election to an individual candidate.
• Donors can give unlimited amounts to Non-Profit Organizations, and keep their name confidential.
Do endorsements help?
According to an article in the New York Times: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/political-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/ a majority of newspaper endorsements used to favor Republican Presidential Candidates. Over the past three decades, the endorsement scales have tipped, and are more balanced. The article notes that newspaper endorsements, do not guarantee endorsements from electoral college voters. The point is that endorsements don’t matter. For example in the 2004 Presidential Election 213 Democratic endorsements were given to candidates, while only 205 Republican endorsements were given, yet a Republican Candidate won the election. As time prevails, newspaper endorsements will mean less and less as more and more people have access to the internet and get their news from different sources.
Political Polls:
Friday, November 4, 2011
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 48%
Herman Cain 46%
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 49%
Rick Perry 45%
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 47%
Mitt Romney 47%
National GOP Primary
Mitt Romney 24%
Herman Cain 23%
Rick Perry 13%
Newt Gingrich 12%
Undecided 9%
Ron Paul 8%
None of the above 5%
Michele Bachmann 4%
Jon Huntsman 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Do these polls mean anything in the upcoming election? Before reading the book Game Change by John Heilemann & Mark Halperin, I used to think the polls mattered. After reading that book many of the candidates believed they were leading in the polls, but when voting occurred the polls were off. I try not to put too much merit into these polls because the outcome of the polls depends on the way questions were asked or written or what the demographic of the people asked the question looked like. It’s very easy to manipulate the data and make it appear one way or the other, so these early polling numbers don’t matter. The polls do not necessarily represent the voters, since anyone can answer these questions. A lot of them are given on-line and there is little accountability as to who is actually voting. Election day votes of the electoral colleges are what matter! The 2004 and the 2008 elections proved the popular vote is not what counts…presidential candidates need the electoral votes!
“Stated most bluntly, posting this ad reflects an irresponsible disregard for the health of the people Cain aims to represent. Whether his campaign knew better and disregarded that knowledge or remained willfully ignorant of the public health consequences of the power they already wield, this ad should help disqualify him for the office he seeks. Because even if you agree that we need to dismantle a "nanny-state," replacing it with a "neglect/abuse-state" would be even worse.”
After the emergence of Super PACs that followed recent court cases, political donors are nearly free to give as they choose, with their decision guided mainly by how they want to direct their money.
How it’s done:
• A Super PAC can accept unlimited donations to spend on ads for or against specific candidates. For example, a billionaire could give $10 million to the House Majority PAC, a Super PAC organized to elect Congressional Democrats and run by a former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Official. The billionaires name would remain undisclosed.
• The PAC is not required to disclose the amount if it is under $200.
• Candidates can give $2,500 per election to an individual candidate.
• Donors can give unlimited amounts to Non-Profit Organizations, and keep their name confidential.
Do endorsements help?
According to an article in the New York Times: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/political-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/ a majority of newspaper endorsements used to favor Republican Presidential Candidates. Over the past three decades, the endorsement scales have tipped, and are more balanced. The article notes that newspaper endorsements, do not guarantee endorsements from electoral college voters. The point is that endorsements don’t matter. For example in the 2004 Presidential Election 213 Democratic endorsements were given to candidates, while only 205 Republican endorsements were given, yet a Republican Candidate won the election. As time prevails, newspaper endorsements will mean less and less as more and more people have access to the internet and get their news from different sources.
Political Polls:
Friday, November 4, 2011
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 48%
Herman Cain 46%
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 49%
Rick Perry 45%
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 47%
Mitt Romney 47%
National GOP Primary
Mitt Romney 24%
Herman Cain 23%
Rick Perry 13%
Newt Gingrich 12%
Undecided 9%
Ron Paul 8%
None of the above 5%
Michele Bachmann 4%
Jon Huntsman 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Do these polls mean anything in the upcoming election? Before reading the book Game Change by John Heilemann & Mark Halperin, I used to think the polls mattered. After reading that book many of the candidates believed they were leading in the polls, but when voting occurred the polls were off. I try not to put too much merit into these polls because the outcome of the polls depends on the way questions were asked or written or what the demographic of the people asked the question looked like. It’s very easy to manipulate the data and make it appear one way or the other, so these early polling numbers don’t matter. The polls do not necessarily represent the voters, since anyone can answer these questions. A lot of them are given on-line and there is little accountability as to who is actually voting. Election day votes of the electoral colleges are what matter! The 2004 and the 2008 elections proved the popular vote is not what counts…presidential candidates need the electoral votes!
Monday, October 31, 2011
Political Ads
FAVORITE POLITICAL ADS OF 2012:
What I liked and what worked in the ads?
One of the political ads I liked in 2012 is found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1mI_jO8sos&feature=related
This ad was funny to me and I thought it was a somewhat humorous take on the Democrat symbol of the donkey and the Republican symbol of the elephant. I think it portrayed the Republicans stance on many issues quite well and it showed a united party against the democrats. The ad does a good job of portraying its message. The ad is similar to the Barbra Boxer ad. The ad portrays Barbra Boxer as an elitist and attacks the democratic ideals just as the republican ad did and attacked the republican ideas of democratic ideals of handouts and people who want something for nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo
Another political ad I liked in 2012 is found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ This ad was for Barack Obama, without actually using Barack Obama and it focused on his positive impacts. He uses many different demographcis to portray Obama as a good guy who is fighting for their needs. It defines politics and attempts to utilize people at the individual level as talking to each other and getting things done in that way and his message is that it starts with US, meaning we all need to vote for him because he is getting the job done in Washington. I thought his message was done in a tactful way and doesn’t use negative images of anyone else…it only focuses on him and his impact so far and why we need to keep in office. This message is like Michele Bachmann’s ad found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixs27-xUSRA&feature=pyv. She uses social media and her internet sight, Michelebachmann.com to appeal to peoples common sense to elect a common sense woman into the white house. I think these ads are better than attacking the other candidates which appears petty and like you are out of control and doing whatever you can to win.
I don’t like it when celebrities get involved with politics. I feel like they use their platform to expose their opinion, when they shouldn’t. Most celebrities are uninformed and do not completely research the issues. An exception is Michael J. Fox’s ad: tp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow/intriguing-political-ads-2010-10887147. He is obviously well informed of the issue (having lived through it) and I think his ad does a great job of supporting an issue he believes in. Generally, speaking I do not like it when celebrities get involved in politics and use their public platform (such as red carpet events) to give their opinion.
Different News Outlets Opinions:
This issue:
Herman Cain and his stance on the abortion issue.
How can one issue be covered so differently on different networks?
What Fox News had to say?
Fox News focuses on Cain’s attempts to undermine Planned Parenthood. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/30/planned-parenthood-rejects-cain-claim-abortion-clinics-are-aimed-at-black/
What does NPR have to say?
NPR focuses on Cain’s contradictions regarding when abortion is appropriate and claims that he now opposes all abortions, when before he claimed abortion was acceptable in cases of rape or if the mother was in danger. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141842125
What does the New York Times say?
The New York Times took the same approach as NPR and focused on Cain’s retractions of statements regarding his stance on abortion. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/us/politics/for-cain-reverse-becomes-a-prominent-gear.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=abortion&st=cse
The different opinions regarding the information are important because they show the type of coverage politicians receive according to the agenda of the news source. News in this manner does not appear to be balanced, since you can read three different stories about the same subject and receive three different opinions. This shows the impact on the opinions of voters if they receive their news information from only one source. A good point of contention that arises from the differing news sources means a dialogue among voters will start and will cause people to think about other sides of the issue. Whether, these people accept differing opinions remains to be seen, but it is important to note these conversations are going on. The differing news stories have different impacts on helping or hurting the candidates…unfortunately it depends on the media’s take of the story and how they decide to portray the story to the public. The differing opinions on the news stories impact public opinion because if they only show one side of the story, the people do not get the truth which results in opinions based on false facts, which means voters are basing on falsities and not on the truth. As we have seen from this example the news media attempts to sway voter opinion by reporting on the portion of the story in line with their agenda. It is important to remember the media is trying to attract voters and not necessarily in giving the truth thereby proving the impact of not telling the truth to the public.
What I liked and what worked in the ads?
One of the political ads I liked in 2012 is found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1mI_jO8sos&feature=related
This ad was funny to me and I thought it was a somewhat humorous take on the Democrat symbol of the donkey and the Republican symbol of the elephant. I think it portrayed the Republicans stance on many issues quite well and it showed a united party against the democrats. The ad does a good job of portraying its message. The ad is similar to the Barbra Boxer ad. The ad portrays Barbra Boxer as an elitist and attacks the democratic ideals just as the republican ad did and attacked the republican ideas of democratic ideals of handouts and people who want something for nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo
Another political ad I liked in 2012 is found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ This ad was for Barack Obama, without actually using Barack Obama and it focused on his positive impacts. He uses many different demographcis to portray Obama as a good guy who is fighting for their needs. It defines politics and attempts to utilize people at the individual level as talking to each other and getting things done in that way and his message is that it starts with US, meaning we all need to vote for him because he is getting the job done in Washington. I thought his message was done in a tactful way and doesn’t use negative images of anyone else…it only focuses on him and his impact so far and why we need to keep in office. This message is like Michele Bachmann’s ad found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixs27-xUSRA&feature=pyv. She uses social media and her internet sight, Michelebachmann.com to appeal to peoples common sense to elect a common sense woman into the white house. I think these ads are better than attacking the other candidates which appears petty and like you are out of control and doing whatever you can to win.
I don’t like it when celebrities get involved with politics. I feel like they use their platform to expose their opinion, when they shouldn’t. Most celebrities are uninformed and do not completely research the issues. An exception is Michael J. Fox’s ad: tp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow/intriguing-political-ads-2010-10887147. He is obviously well informed of the issue (having lived through it) and I think his ad does a great job of supporting an issue he believes in. Generally, speaking I do not like it when celebrities get involved in politics and use their public platform (such as red carpet events) to give their opinion.
Different News Outlets Opinions:
This issue:
Herman Cain and his stance on the abortion issue.
How can one issue be covered so differently on different networks?
What Fox News had to say?
Fox News focuses on Cain’s attempts to undermine Planned Parenthood. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/30/planned-parenthood-rejects-cain-claim-abortion-clinics-are-aimed-at-black/
What does NPR have to say?
NPR focuses on Cain’s contradictions regarding when abortion is appropriate and claims that he now opposes all abortions, when before he claimed abortion was acceptable in cases of rape or if the mother was in danger. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141842125
What does the New York Times say?
The New York Times took the same approach as NPR and focused on Cain’s retractions of statements regarding his stance on abortion. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/us/politics/for-cain-reverse-becomes-a-prominent-gear.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=abortion&st=cse
The different opinions regarding the information are important because they show the type of coverage politicians receive according to the agenda of the news source. News in this manner does not appear to be balanced, since you can read three different stories about the same subject and receive three different opinions. This shows the impact on the opinions of voters if they receive their news information from only one source. A good point of contention that arises from the differing news sources means a dialogue among voters will start and will cause people to think about other sides of the issue. Whether, these people accept differing opinions remains to be seen, but it is important to note these conversations are going on. The differing news stories have different impacts on helping or hurting the candidates…unfortunately it depends on the media’s take of the story and how they decide to portray the story to the public. The differing opinions on the news stories impact public opinion because if they only show one side of the story, the people do not get the truth which results in opinions based on false facts, which means voters are basing on falsities and not on the truth. As we have seen from this example the news media attempts to sway voter opinion by reporting on the portion of the story in line with their agenda. It is important to remember the media is trying to attract voters and not necessarily in giving the truth thereby proving the impact of not telling the truth to the public.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Yes, the political ads the candidates are running are propaganda and no, it is not effective. Many people vote based on their ideological lines and the propaganda confirms their opinions (either positively or negatively). For instance if they see a positive add about a candidate they like, they will think, “Yes…that is correct”. If they see a negative add about a candidate they like, they will attribute it to below the belt politicking from the other side.
The current ads regarding the 2008 GOP primary are no different. When watching the ads, the people, either agree or disagree or disagree with the candidates viewpoints or portrayal based on their preconceived notions. Rick Perry’s ad attacking Mitt Romney’s health care policies is not swaying voters one way or the other. The voters already have opinions based on his health care policies and the ad confirms the thoughts they already have about Mitt Romney.
http//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/perrys-romneycare-ad-health-policy-gets-really-dramatic/2011/10/10glQAZMA6ZL_blog.html. Why then are people paying attention to the ad? People are responding to the ad as a way to support their beliefs in everyday conversation. It provides evidence to their already formed opinions.
Michelle Bachmann’s ad attempts to humanize her as a local girl who understands Iowa, because she grew up there. I think the ads is attempting to win votes in Iowa because she relates to Iowans. I don’t think this is effective, because people will not vote because she is from their home town. If people do vote for her, I think it has more to do with their political ideologies lining up with hers. (Which could be the case…many regions have the same values.)
President Obama needs to combat his negative portrayal and concentrate on the positive things he has done while in office. There is going to be a lot of negative ads about him and the GOP will have lots of ammunition. He is going to have to prove them wrong and prove that his policies have positively impacted America. I believe he has the hardest job because he has to overcome people’s opinions of him right now. The negative ads against him are confirming peoples thoughts that he is not improving the economy and has done’ little to change America, as was his running slogan in the 2008 election.
The most effective of these ads is Michelle Bachmann’s because it is positive and she is portraying herself as a someone who understands your needs and wants. I think the negative ads are not effective because it shows the candidate running them as a person who needs to attack the other person to win instead of showing what they are capable of.
Social media groups are now entering the political arena and providing advertising space. I think this is a great way to for these groups to make money, and also provide the candidates with face time, so the voters can get to know where they stand on the issues. It seems like (so far) they are being fair and providing space to both parties. I think where we run into problems is when one social media group decides to become more liberal or conservative and then start showing ads to support their agenda. As long as the sites remain bi-partisan and do not try to sway public opinion one way or the other (as television networks do), I think it is helpful for the political campaign of 2012.
Yes, I think television ads are the best way to reach passive voters. Passive voters do not want to research the issues and basically want someone to tell them who to vote for. Television is the best media for doing this, because there is very little work involved for them. I don’t think internet ads will be as effective. Usually, you have to click on the ad to see what it says. Passive voters do not have an interest in seeking the information for themselves and so the television works the best.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
"The only way to do great work is to love what you do."
"The only way to do great work is to love what you do."
-Steve Jobs
This statement is true…I am living proof. I received a Bachelor’s degree in sports medicine about seven years ago, because the only way my parents would support me in college was if I majored in a math or a science. I graduated and moved to AZ for an internship. The profession was nothing like I thought it would be and I decided I could no longer continue to live my life, performing in a job I didn’t like. I went to work for the City of Phoenix and found my true passion serving in the public sector. I love everything about it! I enjoy going to work in the morning and impacting people in Phoenix. I feel that I deliver better customer service, because I am happy at work! I think Mr. Jobs said it best!!! I intend to continue to live by his words of wisdom for the rest of my life.
-R.I.P. Mr. Jobs.
Competition among cable news outlets
Competition among cable news outlets is harmful to journalism, because it means network producers have controlover the content of the news instead of the reporters. This is badbecause most networks are not neutral and are generally aligned with onepolitical party over the other. The polarized nature of politicsmeans a network siding with one political ideology over the other resultsin an increased amount of positive versus negative stores for the particularideology they are supporting. I would agree with Mr. Capus commentthat, “Competition among cable news outlets can create an environmentthat is “harmful” to journalism.
I think the answer to solving thisproblem lies in the internet. The internet as a news source allowspeople to research what they are interested in and can formulate opinionsbased on all of the information available, not a two minute sound byteof someone else’s opinion. The information, on the inter internetis found quickly and you are unlikely to find the same viewpoint on a story. Thompson, 2011, quotes Ben Sherwood of ABC as saying, Yahoo Newsrepresented the ability of modern news to reach an ever-broader audiencewith more diverse and exciting content. Yahoo in one month reaches95% of the American electorate.” The reason this is important isbecause this is an astounding number of people the media can reach…viathe internet. Cable news networks do not have this capability. Aperson must be watching as show at a particular time to obtain news infoand generally the people watching the show have the same ideology as thereporter, so the chance of obtaining an opposing viewpoint is limited. The internet can help mitigate this.
I think the answer to solving thisproblem lies in the internet. The internet as a news source allowspeople to research what they are interested in and can formulate opinionsbased on all of the information available, not a two minute sound byteof someone else’s opinion. The information, on the inter internetis found quickly and you are unlikely to find the same viewpoint on a story. Thompson, 2011, quotes Ben Sherwood of ABC as saying, Yahoo Newsrepresented the ability of modern news to reach an ever-broader audiencewith more diverse and exciting content. Yahoo in one month reaches95% of the American electorate.” The reason this is important isbecause this is an astounding number of people the media can reach…viathe internet. Cable news networks do not have this capability. Aperson must be watching as show at a particular time to obtain news infoand generally the people watching the show have the same ideology as thereporter, so the chance of obtaining an opposing viewpoint is limited. The internet can help mitigate this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)